Foreign Wives

[Ezra 10:1] Now when Ezra had prayed, and when he had confessed, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, there assembled unto him out of Israel a very great congregation of men and women and children: for the people wept very sore.
The marriage problems in 9-10 began in this way. In the seventh year of Artaxerxes (458 B.E.), Ezra led a second group of Jewish exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem, only to learn that a serious problem existed in the community that had developed previously under Zerubbabel. Influenced by leaders of the new community in Jerusalem, the priests and Levites along with others in the city had intermarried with the pagan population they had found living in the land. When Ezra learned this, he ripped his garments and pulled out his hair in horror and grief. He was dumbfounded as to what to do.
Ezra believes that if the apostasy is allowed to continue, it would threaten the existence of the community, so he prays after the evening sacrifice, confessing his shame and guilt on behalf of his nation. Others joined him in prayer and weeping. The implied answer is yes. Ezra’s drastic action in confronting mixed marriages must be understood in the light of this brief that the final end would come unless the coEven before Israel had entered into the land, they had been warned not to intermarry with the inhabitants in Ex. 34:11-16; and Deut. 7:1-5. Such intermarriage would inevitable result in idolatry.
Even before Israel had entered into the land, they had been warned not to intermarry with the inhabitants in Ex. 34:11-16; and Deut. 7:1-5. Such intermarriage would inevitable result in idolatry.
Ezra apparently agreed that this was the mind of G-d, and so an announcement was made that in three days the putting away would take place. Those who did not respond would have their property confiscated and they themselves would be banned from the congregation of the exiles.
He calls them to separate themselves from the foreigners – especially from their foreign wives.
According to the list in Ezra 10, only 113 had taken foreign wives (17 priest, 6 Levites, 1 singer, 3 porter and 86 laity). Since the total number of families was something like 29,000, the size of the problem shrinks under closer inspection to less than 4 men out of a 1000, or about 0.4 per cent. The issue was not size but the severing of Israel’s marriage covenant with G-d which forbade G-d’s people marrying persons outside the covenant.
To send away or to cause to go out is not the usual word for divorce. Nevertheless, that is what appears to have happened. Their solution is said to agree with the Law.
Divorce was permitted under certain circumstances in Deut. 24:1-4. Ezra unlocked the meaning of the phrase ‘for something unseemly, shameful,’ or another translated ‘he finds something indecent about her.’ This could not refer to adultery, as the Law provided the death penalty in that case (Deut. 22:28). What could bring greater shame than the breaking of the covenant relationship and the ultimate judgment of G-d on all the people? Ezra had this passage in mind when he observed the Law and provided for the divorce of these unbelieving wives.
Question that remains is where any attempt made to win them to faith in the one true G-d? No direct answers are given, because these matters were not germane to the main point of revelation.
The resistance has to do with the proposal that Jewish men separate from their foreign wives. In the past, these marriages had been accepted, or at least tolerated, in the community. Now mass divorce is commanded. Laxness concerning the CThe chapter ends with a touch of human feeling; it recognizes what a tragic experience this will be – especially for the wives who had children. No information is given concerning the care for those who have been set aside.
In a time of oppression Habakkuk 2:4 declares that the righteous shall live by his faithfulness. Paul quotes Hab.2: 4 in Gal. 2:11, 5; he has sharp words for those who try to live by faith but without faithfulness. The times called for faithfulness – for holding fast to traditions that had given life to the community.
While marriages with foreigners may have been tolerated in an earlier time, that kind of tolerance was too much to expect of the small Jewish community that was grasping for a future following the disaster of the exile. These marriages were undercutting the foundations of the community. For this reason, Ezra and the Jewish leadership chose the drastic action of divorce; it was a decision for the community even though it must have caused deep pain for individuals and individual families.
Ezra’s action also reminds us that marriage has implications for family, children, community, and faith. Those who participate in intermarriage are involving themselves not merely with the other person but with the interplay of primal forces and beliefs that may be in conflict with each other (concerning the meaning of life and the shape of the future). If Ezra’s solution was harsh and drastic, it was because the issue had to do with the continued life of the community of faith.
More than many realize, that issue is important to us today. Christian communities who have minority status in various parts of our world know how important it is to the life of the community to marry within the faith.
Ezra rendered a questionable decision when he took this tack point out that he lost his prestige and influence in the community as a result of this decision. However, when the chronology of Ezra and Nehemiah is restored to its proper sequence, according to the textual claims and the most recent studies from history, Ezra was once again before the public during the revival of Nehemiah 8.
Can we divorce unbelieving spouses today? No! 1 Cor. 7:12-16 says that if the unbeliever is willing to continue living with the believer, than they must not divorce, for the unbelieving partner is sanctified by the believer, should the unbeliever finally and irremediably desert the believer, the believer ‘is not bound in such circumstances; G-d had called us to live in peace’ (1 Cor. 7:150. When an unbeliever chooses to desert his or her partner and marriage vows, then reluctantly the believer may let that one go, sadly accept the divorce with the right to be married to another.
Malachi 2:16 Say G-d hates divorce and hates one who covers his garment with violence. The garment refers to the ancient custom of spreading a garment over a woman (prayer shawl). Thus to cover one’s bed with violence was to be unfaithful to the marital bed and one’s nuptial obligations. The symbol of wedded trust, much like our wedding ring, became the agent of violence toward these wives.
Sometimes preservation of a way of life dictates a policy, which disappoints the democratic, ecumenical spirit. Today we worry about gay marriages and the church acceptance of it and now it has come acceptable!
The old saying: ‘you made your bed now lie in it,’ was not from G-d
commandments had seduced even those who were at the center of Jewish leadership.